It puzzles me how companies like KNC can spout all this commitment to the bitcoin economy, and not see that the bedrock of that economy is the ability for someone to mine the coins economically....and also the future of their business. People won't be back to lose another shitload of money in return for creating the coins to make the system work, funding the dev of the rigs...and being the only ones likely to not make anything.
Exactly my thought. I had friends and relatives asking me about what I am doing and listening with interest when I explain to them what Bitcoin is and wanting to invest a lot of money too, completely trusting me with the decision. I was going to tell to to buy from KNC eventually. I was... |
|
|
|
As for bar, please don't make yourself look silly providing really weak and easily countered excuses you come up with off the top of your head. There is nothing to "game". A customer could not order and claim to or they could order and claim they never got the product. OH NOES ordering stuff can be gamed I guess KNC will stop selling products. KNC deals with the "risk" of being gamed on orders but can't on RMA.
If I recall correctly, the 'game' that KnC was supposed to be avoiding was this: Say you have a Saturn, and want to upgrade it to a Jupiter. You could complain to KnC that both the boards in your Saturn are underperforming to the point that they deserve a replacement (or are just broken). They ship you two replacement boards immediately after you send your "security payment". Then you just keep the boards, thereby bypassing any queue waiting on upgrades (or avoid the total nonexistence of such, as of this writing). I am not trying to justify KnC's RMA practices - I feel sure they ought to be able to find a way to work around this 'gaming'... I'm just pointing out what I think the game is that they are trying to avoid. Then they can request more BTC than these boards are worth. I was willing to send them even 30BTC for an advanced replacement, but they just refused it. |
|
|
|
I understand that you don't want to lose money while it is being RMA'd and they should as a company send some sort of compensation per Board that is sent back in based on current difficulty. This will be the only part that I agree with.
Thank you. For a moment I was made to think I am crazy among sane to expect no downtime with such equipment. BFSB did advance RMA for me, in exchange for a bitcoin deposit. Went flawless, for both. This isn't a big thing to do, but extraordinary well received by customers, especially in the time-critical ASIC-Business.
To cherish the idea of bitcoin and one of its main advantages, fast transfer of values, it would be an easy win for both KNC and their customers to establish a comfortable RMA process.
RMA request -> bitcoin deposit -> delivery of replacement item -> return of faulty item -> reception and verification -> release deposit.
win-win, easy-easy
It makes you wonder how a company whose business revolves around Bitcoin, refuses to use Bitcoin as a security in order to minimize customer's downtime.
It's a standard back to base warranty.
What your suggesting is a total ball-ache.
You then need to block trace every payment, which become entirely more convoluted and confusing for customer service.
Keep it simple. Ship it, can you fix it? or is it something more involved? in which case ship a replacement - get it out the door as soon as poss.
If Redacted wants to share his original tracking code, and is happy with us sharing the return code - you'll see for yourself - turn around the same day.
You make it sound like the most complicated thing in the world, when in fact it is a trivial job when you pay enough people to do it. But like I said: if you don't want to do something you make excuses. |
|
|
|
Bar, there is a saying that perfectly fits the situation: "If you want to do something, you’ll find a way. If you don’t, you’ll find an excuse." They found an excuse, I found a way  Did they give you alternatives? Again your way might not have been viable. You are close enough to them the RMA shouldn't take but a day or two max just send it in! No alternatives were offered. Liam was very adamant over the phone, not even giving a reason why a BTC deposit is not a viable option. He just said: "we are not going to change our RMA procedures" in a way that made it clear they don't want to work with their customers. Sending it back is a risk I am not willing to take: it can take 3 days, it can take a week. The lost revenue while my machine is offline will never get recouped back from the increased hashing performance. At least not at this stage. |
|
|
|
So KNC would not accept even Bitcoins as a security in order to send working boards first as to minimize downtime for customers.
From where I am standing it looks like they are trying hard to work against their customers by refusing to come up with a RMA solution that works for both sides.
I can not think of a single reason why they would not accept BTC as a security in order to send working boards first, apart from trying to discourage people from using the RMA service.
This has to do with people trying to "Game" the system. Maybe they don't want to be liable with your BTC or want to deal with customers saying they never got the BTC back (Lieing to game the system) RMA has always been, send it back and they send you a new one. This isn't a new concept. While I understand the frustration of potentially losing money while it is RMA'd that is the nature of the beast and their hands are tied. Bar, there is a saying that perfectly fits the situation: "If you want to do something, you’ll find a way. If you don’t, you’ll find an excuse." They found an excuse, I found a way |
|
|
|
|
So KNC would not accept even Bitcoins as a security in order to send working boards first as to minimize downtime for customers.
From where I am standing it looks like they are trying hard to work against their customers by refusing to come up with a RMA solution that works for both sides.
I can not think of a single reason why they would not accept BTC as a security in order to send working boards first, apart from trying to discourage people from using the RMA service.
|
|
|
|
He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.
Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad? Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst? I will try one more time to explain. If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange. I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false: If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad. It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference Oh I didn't realize the debate was over which adjective is more appropriate. Again the decision to invest in a miner was bad, the decision to invest in BTC via mining was good but worse than investing directly. Now we agree  Just one note: these statements can be made with 100% certainty now, but not when people made the decisions |
|
|
|
He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.
Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad? Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst? I will try one more time to explain. If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange. I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false: If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad. It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference |
|
|
|
He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.
Why would you consider a 100% ROI to be bad? Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst? |
|
|
|
Your investment in BTC would be good but your investment in the miner would be bad since you could have invested in MORE BTC for the same price directly with more flexibility to sell.
So hypothetically you consider a 7000USD investment, that gets you 100% ROI a bad one? |
|
|
|
It's not bad, but the profit has come from the rising BTC/$ rate not from the Jupiter. Any hardware needs to be valued in the number of BTC it cost and the number it gives you back.
Exactly And this is why Rampion is wrong, because he is saying it is bad. No, it is not bad, just worse than buying BTC and keeping them. |
|
|
|
Of course its about the $ value
How would you feel about ROI on miner hardware if the reverse was true?
If you had paid 100 BTC for a miner when BTC was worth $100
You mined 101 BTC but BTC value dropped to $50
Would you say you have made a ROI?
Yes! More BTC than you started with is a profit. Less BTC than you started with is a loss. Exactly. It's incredible how is so difficult for some people to understand such simple concepts: You are buying a machine that mines bitcoins. If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad. So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad? It depends on how many coins you spent on it, or on how many coins you could have bought with 7000USD when you paid for the unit. Most of batch 1 customers bought their units in June, when BTC/USD was at $100, that means aprox. 70 coins per unit. If a batch 1 Jupiter mines less than 70 coins in its lifetime then yes, batch 1 customers would have been better by buying BTC. All the above is painfully obvious, and still some deny the obvious. Do you understand the difference between bad, worse and worst? Is English your native language? |
|
|
|
Of course its about the $ value
How would you feel about ROI on miner hardware if the reverse was true?
If you had paid 100 BTC for a miner when BTC was worth $100
You mined 101 BTC but BTC value dropped to $50
Would you say you have made a ROI?
Yes! More BTC than you started with is a profit. Less BTC than you started with is a loss. Exactly. It's incredible how is so difficult for some people to understand such simple concepts: You are buying a machine that mines bitcoins. If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad. So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad? |
|
|
|
they proved to our community they could deliver a product on time: A World Premier.
Consider yourself lucky then for not enduring a delay, because some of us did. 2 weeks can make a huge difference: you are making profit already and I'm at less than 10% of ROI. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone tried to call KNC today?
I've been trying for the past 3 hours with over 15 attempts and nobody is answering.
|
|
|
|
Made 25 Btc now with 2 Jupiters. Not even halfway there because 2 units came around 16th and 19th and one is still lost in transport. Great to know that some have already made back their money! Please keep it to yourself.
Btw: Best Share 1,487,394,728 Found my first block today =)
Solo? |
|
|
|
What could be better than getting up @ 3am to see how much you made during the night?
I love this shizzle!
Gox @ 227, XBT @ 212....
Just reached 50% return, day 19
But according to Croppo, they aren't worth a dime.....
I better just give up then....
Hahahahahaha
Can I hate you now? :p Don't hate, just envy that he is 50% towards ROI. I wish I can say the same thing  |
|
|
|
to what temp?
I got it up to 90c before I put the fan back on. I didn't wanna risk letting get any higher. I know the limit is supposed to be about 105c, but why risk it right? Anyway, I noticed that when it got to around 90, all the VRMs showed an output of 0A. So I let it cool down, and when it got to about 51c, the two normally working VRMs kicked back in. I let it slowly climb back up by blocking airflow. I noticed when it gets to 75.5c, a third VRM kicks in. Its not until it hits 80c, that the 4th VRM kicks in. As soon as the 4th VRM kick in, the temps get to 83c, and then every VRM drops back down to 0A. So from this experiment; I've gotta figure out somehow to keep one of the boards under 55c (thats where it hashes the best, and the other one between 80c - 82c, which is freaking difficult. Just a bit of airflow makes more then 2 degrees of difference. I would suggest waiting for the next firmware, which should hopefully fix all problems. I mean we shouldn't make our own fixes, right? |
|
|
|
Man i really don't understand you people. All you do is just whine and bitch here on the forums. I wonder what's the actual percentage of KnC customers that are whining because i see the same 10-15 people around out of the ~3000 orders(?). Why should you receive compensation for your own laziness/lack of knowledge of using the RMA system. There is absolutely 0 reason for you to complain like an incapacitated child. If the product you bought is sub-par with what they advertise then grow up and RMA it and in a matter of days you will have your perfect product. In the long term you are losing more than the shipping and the time lost while waiting for the RMA.
Because using the RMA system makes no sense from a financial point of view. You will make more BTC mining with 420GH/s now, than send the miner back in order to mine presumably with 550GH/s in 5-7 days. I was given an RMA number on 31st and the next day Bitcoinorama was kind enough to give me the 0.98.1 Beta, which healed one of my Jupiters completely, which just shows that there is lack of communication internally between the different departments. While suggest a RMA, when there is a chance for a software fix? Currently I am 99% convinced that my other Jupiter will be healed too, which makes me wonder why people decide to send boards back. That makes no sense. Hi Cyper,
I don't know if you have tried this, but after reading the KNC forums, I found a reference to the #kncminer channel on freenode IRC, where some of the orsoc developers tend to hang around. I had a serious problem with my miner that was not resolved by talking to support on the phone, but Henrik (hno) from Orsoc was on the IRC channel and promptly got the problem sorted! My miner was hosted, but perhaps he, or somebody else, mighy be able to fix your problem or at least help troubleshoot. Worth a try, and much more effective than posting here. I don't think anyone from KNC or Orsoc is reading this thread(?)
I hang there quite often and has spoken with hno just yesterday, but he hasn't suggested anything that can fix my 2nd Jupiter. |
|
|
|
Let's see what firmware they come up with Monday, because so far I'm far from impressed or satisfied with the product, not to mention the delay for which I still expect compensation.
Don't want to be nagging daily, but it seems that's the only way with KNC.
Jupiter 1 is hashing with 0.98.1(beta) at stable 564GH/s with 0.9% HW erros - no complaints there. The only thing that can be improved is the power consumption, but no big deal for now.
Jupiter 2 is still averaging 420GH/s with 0.98. The beta firmware did not help and it even reduced the hash speed to around 390-400GH/s. I expect improvements there.
i wouldnt expect any kind of compensation for delays....kind of expected with this type of hardware. we are the guinea pigs! and im ok with that. I think there is a direct correlation between the number of days that one's order is delayed past the 15th October and the expectation for a compensation. The longer the delay, the higher the expectation. I am not surprised that people who endured a delay of less than 5 days are less inclined to argue over any compensation. But I waited 14 days and while some people are half way to their ROI, I am nowhere near that, which makes me far from happy and satisfied as a KNCminer customer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
